Ex Parte Schneider et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 1, 201612051386 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 1, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/051,386 03/19/2008 48116 7590 FAY SHARPE/LUCENT 1228 Euclid Avenue, 5th Floor The Halle Building Cleveland, OH 44115-1843 07/06/2016 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Matthias SCHNEIDER UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www .uspto.gov ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. LUTZ 200875US01 1438 EXAMINER REDDIV ALAM, SRINIV ASAR ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2477 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/06/2016 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address( es): docketing@faysharpe.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MATTHIAS SCHNEIDER, ANTONELLA F ANIUOLO, and RAINER BACHL 1 Appeal2015-001266 Application 12/051,386 Technology Center 2400 Before JASON V. MORGAN, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges. CUTITTA, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Non-Final Rejection of claims 1-10. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM.2 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Lucent Technologies, Inc. See Appeal Brief 1. 2 Throughout this Opinion, we refer to: (1) Appellants' Specification filed Mar. 19, 2008 (Spec.); (2) the Non-Final Office Action (Non-Final Act.) mailed May 7, 2013; (3) the Appeal Brief (Appeal Br.) filed May 1, 2014; and (4) the Examiner's Answer (Ans.) mailed Aug. 20, 2014. Appeal2015-001266 Application 12/051,386 BACKGROUND According to Appellants, the application relates to "a method of providing a VoIP connection through wireless communication links of a packet-based wireless communication system." Spec. 23. The method includes generating a joint control message on the downlink control channel for allocation of a persistent grant of network resources to the VoIP connection both on the uplink transmission path and the downlink transmission path. Id. at 12. Claim 1 is reproduced below with disputed limitation emphasized: 1. A method of providing a VoIP connection through wireless communication links of a packet-based wireless communication system, the wireless communication links comprising an uplink transmission path from a terminal to a base station and a downlink transmission path from the base station to the terminal, each of the uplink and downlink transmission paths having a control channel and at least one data channel; wherein the method comprises the steps of: generating a joint control message for jointly scheduling network resources on both the uplink transmission path and the downlink transmission path; transmitting the joint control message on the downlink control channel; receiving the joint control message at the terminal; and triggered by the received joint control message, allocating a persistent grant of network resources to the VoIP connection both on the uplink transmission path and the downlink transmission path. REFERENCES The art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal: Wang et al. ("Wang") US 2008/0101286 Al Malladi et al. ("Malladi") US 2008/0207150 Al 2 May 1, 2008 Aug. 28, 2008 Appeal2015-001266 Application 12/051,386 REJECTIONS Claims 1-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Malladi and Wang. Non-Final Act. 3-5. Our review in this appeal is limited only to the above rejections and issues raised by the Appellants. We have not considered other possible issues that have not been raised by Appellants and which are, therefore, not before us. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2012). ISSUE Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Malladi and Wang teaches or suggests "generating a joint control message for jointly scheduling network resources on both the uplink transmission path and the downlink transmission path," as recited in claim 1? DISCUSSION After review of Appellants' arguments and the Examiner's findings and reasoning, we determine that Appellants have not identified error in the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection for reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Non-Final Office Action and the Answer. See Non-Final Act. 3-5; Ans. 17-19. We add the following for emphasis and completeness. In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds Malladi' s Physical Downlink Control Channel ("PDCCH") teaches or suggests the disputed features. Malladi' s PDCCH includes downlink assignments and uplink grants and is used for assigning various physical ("PHY") channels 208 layer resources 3 Appeal2015-001266 Application 12/051,386 for downlink ("DL") or uplink ("UL") transmission. Malladi i-f 49. Malladi further describes correcting power by aperiodically transferring power control commands to access terminals 302 and mapping the commands to the PDCCH, "in which case the power correction can be transmitted as part of the D L assignment or UL grant." Malladi i-fi-1 68 and 71. Appellants contend "Malladi does NOT teach 'scheduling' as claimed, but rather merely discloses 'granting' and 'assigning,' which is not the same thing." Appeal Br. 6-7. We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument. The Examiner correctly finds that Malladi's use of the PDCCH to aperiodically correct power to access terminals 302 teaches scheduling network resources, as claimed. Ans. 18 (citing Malladi i-f 71 ). The Examiner also refers to Malladi's discussion of preamble-based uplink power control in system 500, in which "[t]ransmission of the power control preamble from preamble generator 502 can be scheduled explicitly or implicitly by the corresponding sector in base station 202 (and/or a scheduler)." Ans. 18 (citing Malladi i-f 77, emphasis added). Malladi also indicates that a UL grant sent over the PDCCH "can provide scheduling related data for transmitting the power control preamble over the uplink." Malladi i-f 77. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Malladi' s transmission of scheduling-related data for transmitting power control commands over the PDCCH teaches or suggests "scheduling" as claimed. Appellants further contend the cited portions of Malladi "do NOT teach JOINTLY scheduling network resources for BOTH the uplink transmission path and the downlink transmission path as claimed." Appeal Br. 7-8. Appellants note that Malladi's PDCCH includes uplink grants and 4 Appeal2015-001266 Application 12/051,386 downlink assignments but argue that "even if they are carried on the same PDCCH, the uplink grant and the downlink assignment may very well be made in two separate and/or distinct messages as opposed to being jointly made in a single and/or common joint message." Appeal Br. 7. We agree with the Examiner's finding that Malladi' s PDCCH includes scheduled power corrections sent via the uplink grants and downlink assignments of the PDCCH. Ans. 19 (citing Malladi i-fi-1 49, 71, and 77). Therefore, Appellants arguments are not persuasive because a reasonably broad interpretation, in light of the Specification, of the claimed "joint control message" encompasses Malladi's PDCCH. Spec. 14--15. That is, we agree with the Examiner's finding that Malladi's PDCCH is the joint control message." Id. Furthermore, because Malladi' s PDCCH includes both the uplink grant and the downlink assignment, the PDCCH suggests "a joint control message for jointly scheduling network resources on both the uplink transmission path and the downlink transmission path,'' as claimed. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 1. We also sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 7 and 9, which Appellants argue are patentable for similarly unpersuasive reasons. Appeal Br. 8. Appellants do not make any other substantive argument regarding the rejection of dependent claims 2---6, 8, and 10. Id. Therefore, we likewise sustain the rejections of these dependent claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). 5 Appeal2015-001266 Application 12/051,386 DECISION The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Malladi and Wang is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation